Do harvester upgrades now dominate econ command stations?

[TechSY730]

How about making the HW harvesters "core" harvesters? You could even stick special rules on those things for more fun later on.

That could work, and serve as a nice way to implement the "no upgrading harvesters on the home planet" rule (though the auto-rebuild logic would need to be tweaked some for this special case)

Other than that maybe harvester Mk3s need a major K cost increase so that there's some reason to stay at Mk2 for a while instead of always heading straight for Mk3. Maybe Mk2s need an increase too. Having a full set of harvester upgrades cost the same as the econ station III doesn't really make all that much sense since the econ station is something you'll want to unlock early if at all.

Yep, harvester's don't have a cap, so unless harvesters have an absolutely pitiful efficiency (like they did before the harvester buff), this alone makes them more valuable to unlock higher marks as the game goes one. As such, it seems that getting both Mk. II harvesters should be more knowledge wise than Mk. II econ stations, and similar for Mk. IIIs.

[KDR_11k]

Hell, back before the massive econ buffs I used to build logistics stations EVERYWHERE. Greasing your transport routes means being able to react to any wave, even the super fast counterattacks we had back then.

[Toranth]

Please, everyone, remember that one of the major reasons Harvesters got a buff way back when (March?) was to relieve the downtime problem.  If harvesters get nerfed again, the downtime problem in increased again.
I, for one, have greatly enjoyed being able to rebuild my fleet in a more reasonable amount of time, even if it has cut into my reading time.

FYI, what I'm leaning toward right now is making command station upgrades drop some kind of foldout-like structure on your home command station world(s) that gives some/all of the bonus.  Though some care is necessary as people might do some crazy things with both logistics and military effects on their HW... but generally I find HW-defense more entertaining to read about anyway

To go back to something to something older:  What about... modular Command Stations?  Unlocks give new modules (Resource Manufactorum Mk II, Time Dilation Field Mk III, etc) that could be assembled on an empty command station shell to produce whatever is desired.
Unlocking Mk II/III Harvesters could unlock the Command Station resource producing modules, while forcefields, turrets, etc could unlock the modules (whatever they may be). 

I'm not sure what providing logistic or military station like buffs to the HW will do in the medium-to-long game, since I usually secure/neuter my local systems early in the game.

[Martyn van Buren]

So apart from solutions what do we want to accomplish here?  I liked the older balance where Econ stations were more useful until mid-to-late game; I think having a good reason to build them on your first few conquests created a really interesting dilemma that you can't really match with harvesters.  By late game you should have enough back planets to make Econ III's a lot easier to place.  So I favor a system that encourages Econ stations upgrades at the beginning.

I'm less sure about what this system should be, but I think a generous implementation of the "core harvester" thing, perhaps increasing harvester production (to make up for losing a spots for them), might be a good way to get at this.  Maybe we could aim for command stations having the advantage for 1 - 8 or 1 - 10 worlds (since neither would affect zero)?  I think lowering the threshold would be fair if there were only one.

[Draco18s]

I'm beginning to think that the econ station needs to be scrapped entirely and find something else to fill the void.  Some other way to ... get an offensive or defensive bonus, similar to the remaining two stations.

Yes, this does remove an option for "how to increase your economic output" but in typical games I never find enough room to put a full cap of Mk2 econ stations as it is, so upgrading them to Mk3 is a perceived "waste."  Whereas I can never go wrong with upgrading my harvesters.

(Also, counter-attacks generally don't make me curse having upgraded my harvesters, whereas swapping a system from logistical to econ, only to get hit with a counter-attack in that very system does make me curse and generally lose the system).

[Kahuna]

I'm beginning to think that the econ station needs to be scrapped entirely and find something else to fill the void.  Some other way to ... get an offensive or defensive bonus, similar to the remaining two stations.

How about replacing the Econ CS with a Warp Gate Command Station? It would allow the player to teleport ships between the Warp Gate CSs. It would work like Transports. You put ships in it on planet A and unload them on planet B (ofc planet A and B both would need the Warp Gate CS). Boom! Teleported! This could be hella handy.. for example.. I could easily defend my Experimental Starship Fabricator or Advanced Factory on a distant planet (few AI planets between the "distant planet" and my other planets).

This could be added even if Econ CS wont be removed. Imo that would be awesome.

EDIT: MarkI could teleport ships over 3 hops
MarkII over 6 hops
MarkIII over 9 hops
or something like that. Ships immune to transportation couldn't be teleported.

EDIT2: It could be used offensively too. It could be built on a beachhead planet to avoid deep striking and to bring reinforcements when attacking the AIs' home planets.

http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=9082

[Draco18s]

Ooh, fancy.  Keith, thoughts?

[Wanderer]

Yeas, that is right. But even with these changes people point that harvesters still outshine eco stations. After 5.033 nerf harvesters are stronger than before 5.031 buff. So instead of making race between what recieves more buffs harvesters or eco stations I suggest to look back and see what changes lead to this. Maybe reverting back profit of harvesters in patch you mentioned was not enough to balance harvesters and eco stations.

Not exactly Sol.

What it did was bring Harvesters and Econs into direct balance at 12 worlds (MK II/III econs fully deployed).  I used to go for MK III Econs out of the gate and drop them on the first 4 worlds I took, come hell or high water.  The MK IIIs alone destroyed whatever I might have gotten from the old harvesters, particularly since they were so K expensive.

If you're dropping stations on resourceless worlds regularly, you're going to have an econ problem with the new harvesters, and then the econs come into play.  They should have simply been an alternative to forcing you to watch planet harvest points for resources, but they became nearly mandatory because harvesters were so underwhelming comparitively.

The harvesters SHOULD be your primary economy in my mind.  Econ stations are there to 'fill the gaps' when you can't get enough harvesters up and running.

I don't currently see harvesters out-pacing econ stations being a bad thing.  The econ stations are stop-gaps in case every planet you're taking for strategical reasons happens to be a 0/1 or something equivalently painful.

EDIT: Typo.  Can't instead of can.

[Martyn van Buren]

Huh, I guess we have different ideas about the goal here. I liked having a big opportunity cost for logistic and military stations, especially on the first few planets. Do people think that was bad? One other question --- is there anyone now who doesn't do any economic unlocks and puts all the k into military?

[bongotron2000]

Maybe, and I acknowledge that this could take some serious balancing, make economic command stations multiply the m+c income of the system they're on by an amount that rises with the mk level of the command station. This could be set such that the overall effect was roughly the same for an system with an average number of m+c, while still producing a certain fixed amount of resources. Harvester upgrades would then be even more beneficial with the multiplier from the economic command station.

[Draco18s]

Huh, I guess we have different ideas about the goal here. I liked having a big opportunity cost for logistic and military stations, especially on the first few planets. Do people think that was bad? One other question --- is there anyone now who doesn't do any economic unlocks and puts all the k into military?

I have never spent K on econ stations, although I have unlocked other "economic" structures.

[Martyn van Buren]

Does that mean no harvester upgrades too, Draco?

[Draco18s]

Does that mean no harvester upgrades too, Draco?

No, I get harvester upgrades.  One of the first things I get.

[Wanderer]

Huh, I guess we have different ideas about the goal here. I liked having a big opportunity cost for logistic and military stations, especially on the first few planets. Do people think that was bad? One other question --- is there anyone now who doesn't do any economic unlocks and puts all the k into military?

I have never spent K on econ stations, although I have unlocked other "economic" structures.

I refleet way too often and before the harvester upgrade it was the only viable income source, so our mileage definately varies.

@Martyn: What do you mean by high opportunity cost?  You mean being forced to choose between military and econ?  I did make that choice, and it was econ every time so the game wouldn't drag like a clubfooted sloth.

[Martyn van Buren]

Oh sorry I meant to ask if there's anyone who spends none of their k on income; that is, econ stations or harvesters.

Wanderer: yeah, that is what I mean. I think defending worlds with econs is interesting play, although clearly you're right that waiting for income to trickle in for a refleet is pointless. I do think it was less "best path" before the harvester buff; there were certainly people who never upgraded econ stations and made do with cheaper fleets. I guess I have no idea what I think we should do.